RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "According to CNN and the Times, here is the president of the United States instructing subordinates to violate the law, and promising to use his other powers in office to shield them from consequences if they do so."

Kevin McAleenan. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
Kevin McAleenan. (photo: Alex Brandon/AP)


Take More Care: Did the President Tell Subordinates to Violate the Law?

By Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare

14 April 19

 

n April 5, President Trump met with officials from the Department of Homeland Security at a U.S. Border Patrol station in Calexico, California. According to CNN, the president told Border Patrol agents that they should disobey court orders and turn back asylum seekers at the border. CNN also reports, as does the New York Times, that Trump also instructed then-Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Kevin McAleenan to cease accepting asylum applications entirely. If McAleenan faced legal trouble as a result, Trump said, he would pardon the commissioner.

There is no reason to think that McAleenan would have faced personal, much less criminal, liability if he were to have followed Trump’s order—at least none that we can think of. McAleenan seems not to have implemented the president’s order. And the agents apparently did the right thing and checked with their superiors as to how to proceed. So it’s not clear that any illegal action was taken as a result of the president’s alleged instructions.

What’s more, the administration denies that at least some of the reported conversations took place. So it’s worth being cautious. Yet if true, the incidents are notable because they represent a pretty blatant violation of the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, not to mention the explicit terms of the president’s oath of office.

The Take Care Clause requires that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It is, Jack Goldsmith and John Manning have written, “simple but delphic”—a requirement that seemingly goes to the heart of the office of the presidency, and yet resists easy interpretation. As Goldsmith and Manning note, courts have read the clause in a number of ways over the years, some of them mutually contradictory. The clause might be read to empower the president to take action to execute the law, or it might constrain him by restraining his actions to those that involve faithful execution.

That adverb, “faithfully,” is crucial. It also crops up in the oath of office: the president swears that “I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” (emphasis added). Without flattening the many possible interpretations of the Take Care Clause, reading the clause alongside the oath suggests a requirement that the president act in good faith in carrying out the duties of the executive branch to implement the law and uphold the Constitution. Goldsmith and Manning write as much: the oath and the Take Care Clause, they argue, “point toward a general obligation of good faith.”

Yet, according to CNN and the Times, here is the president of the United States instructing subordinates to violate the law, and promising to use his other powers in office to shield them from consequences if they do so. He is instructing them both to violate known legal obligations of the country and to defy expected court enforcement of those obligation.

It’s hard to square that with any kind of obligation of good faith execution of the law.

Note that there’s no suggestion that Trump was expressing a view of what the law is in these incidents, as the president has the authority to do. He wasn’t, for example, saying to McAleenan—at least according to the stories—that his interpretation of the law is that the United States has no obligation to accept asylum applications and that he was thus instructing him to exercise his discretion within the law to decline to do so. The Times, rather, reports that:

[Kirstjen] Nielsen had earlier refused to carry through with Mr. Trump’s desire to close the border, telling him it was illegal. But the president encouraged Mr. McAleenan to disregard Ms. Nielsen and enforce the move himself. Two days later, Ms. Nielsen submitted her resignation under pressure from Mr. Trump, and the president appointed Mr. McAleenan to her job on an acting basis.

And CNN describes the incident as follows:

President Donald Trump told Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan he would grant McAleenan a pardon if he were sent to jail for having border agents block asylum seekers from entering the US in defiance of US law, senior administration officials tell CNN.
Trump reportedly made the comment during a visit to the border at Calexico, California, a week ago. It was not clear if the comment was a joke.

Similarly, CNN offers no indication that the president was ordering the line agents to follow his good faith view of the law. He seemed in both instances, at least as they are reported, to be assuming that the subordinates would have to act unlawfully in order to follow his instructions.

Neither McAleenan nor the agents followed Trump’s instructions. In McAleenan’s case, this doesn’t seem to have had any effect on his prospects within the administration: just days after the reported exchange, Trump appointed McAleenan to replace Nielsen as acting secretary of homeland security. What’s more, after the president left the room, CNN writes, the agents’ supervisors informed them that they should not follow the president’s command and would face personal liability if they did.

That is to their credit, but the analysis of the president’s behavior doesn’t depend on whether the subordinates carried out the orders. The president has no business instructing people to violate the law in the first place.

The only defense we can imagine here for the president’s behavior is that possibility, as both CNN and the New York Times, acknowledge, that Trump may have been joking in his exchange with McAleenan. But that defense, even if true, only applies to one of the incidents, not the other. As a variation of this, perhaps the president might also argue that, as the Justice Department often has in court, he often speaks off-the-cuff and did not really mean his words to either McAleenan or the agents to be a directive—though such obscurity on a matter of legal compliance is not reassuring from the man tasked with “defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States.” The fact that the agents sought guidance as to how to handle the president’s instructions suggests that if this was the reality, Trump was dangerously unclear with his subordinates as to his meaning and intent.

Responding to questions from the news organizations, the Department of Homeland Security stated categorically that: “At no time has the president indicated, asked, directed or pressured the acting secretary to do anything illegal. Nor would the acting secretary take actions that are not in accordance with our responsibility to enforce the law.” The White House, the Times and CNN write, did not respond to requests for comment on the McAleenan incident, and neither the White House nor the department responded to requests for comments from CNN on the other meeting with agents, according to the stories.

So the denial, while firm, also only covers one of the incidents. We won’t attempt to resolve the apparent factual dispute. We’ll just say this: If the incidents took place, it is hard to see how either of them comport with the president’s most solemn obligations under the Constitution.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+29 # Elroys 2019-04-14 14:06
"Solemn obligations?" - if it's not crystal clear to anyone with critical thinking abilities intact, donald trump's only solemn obligation is to his own personal wealth. He is obliged to steal all the gold that he possibly can while POTUS. The man is a criminal and the vast majority of Americans know it. The only issue is, how do we make sure the truth is revealed in a timely manner? Will courageous souls like Robert Mueller and his team speak out or will they be silent? Remember - silence is complicity.
 
 
+20 # susanlno 2019-04-14 14:50
"The president"? What president?
 
 
+3 # margpark 2019-04-14 15:45
Why are Republican spokespersons referring to judicial decisions as the work of Democrats. I distinctly heard one on the radio today say that Democrats won't let us keep asylum seekers in Mexico. Yes, there is a massive group of people at the southern border seeking asylum which we never prepared for by increased housing or increased judges and courts. But Republican spokespeople say that is Democrat's fault. Practically the only thing George W did that I approved of was to try to get an immigration bill through congress but it was his own party that stopped it. Last congress pushed through a bi-partisan immigration bill and the President refused to sign it. But they keep blaming Democrats for the mess in the immigration system.
 
 
+1 # giraffee23 2019-04-14 17:24
Elroys --- they have and will remain silent. And the longer WE wait the more criminals complicit with the $$TRUMPS$$ will be put into the judicial system, the other checks/balances we once had.
 
 
+2 # dascher 2019-04-14 18:15
The yahoo-in-chief "thinks" that "if the President says it, it IS the law". The poor guy had to drop out of school when he was in fourth grade, so he missed out on much of the education that most Americans get about The Constitution and other such 'stuff' that wastes our time and prevents most of us from becoming amoral money grubbing fools. The poor yahoo-in-chief got most of his "legal education" from Roy Cohn.
 
 
+1 # randrjwr 2019-04-15 14:57
[partial quote name="dascher"] The yahoo-in-chief "thinks" that "if the President says it, it IS the law"..........

Nixon said that too, during Watergate--some thing like "If the President does it, it's not wrong." And W was not so blatant, but was not hesitant to lie in order to get some sort of "permission" to illegally invade Iraq.

We need to rein in the Imperial Presidency."
 
 
+4 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-04-15 06:53
Just more making mountains out of mole hills. The CIA and NSA were created so that presidents could violate US and international laws and not have to answer to anyone. These and other intelligence agencies violate laws every day and no one in the media seems to care.

Pence's bribery of Lenin Moreno of Ecuador was a violation of law. It was a violation of law for the British police and US special forces to go into the Ecuadoran embassy and kidnap Assange. I don't see anyone talking about this.

Bush and Obama both joked about breaking the law.

I think presidents should take the "Take Care" clause seriously. Any president who breaks the law or urges other to do so should be impeached immediately. But this horse is so far out of the barn already, that I hardly see it getting brought back. The presidency with its secret agencies like the CIA have become organize crime syndicates. What else is Trump's regime change in Venezuela or Obama's overthrow of legitimate government in Libya or Ukraine.

It is time to get real. US presidents are gangster bosses. But they also have bosses who are worse than they are. In Trump's case it is Bolton and Pompeo. They don't care about laws or the Take Care Clause .
 
 
0 # randrjwr 2019-04-15 10:18
Quoting: "If McAleenan faced legal trouble as a result, Trump said, he would pardon the commissioner."

This statement and all statements by Trump to the same effect are sufficient to warrant ABOLISHING THE PRESIDENTIAL PARDON! It is now being used to enable a totally lawless administration, including even the power of the President to pardon himself.

How can Congress tolerate (and, even encourage) this?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN